THE EU will face a “nightmare” scenario if it does not allow Albania and other Balkan states to join the bloc, the Albanian Prime Minister has claimed.

Albania is a formal membership candidate for the EU, but the process has been slowed by the crumbling bloc and member states who do not want to allow new countries into the 28 member union.

Now Prime Minister Edi Rama, a self-avowed friend of Tony Blair, has claimed the Balkans could “go crazy” if their role in Europe is not appreciated.

He warned the bloc rolling back its membership offer could wreak havoc on the continent, saying “the alternative would be a nightmare for the people and countries of Europe.”

Mr Rama said: “There is a lack of understanding, or a lack of vision in not realising that this region needs Europe, but Europe needs this region too, for a secure and safe Europe.

[What’s that saying? “You need us to not wreak havoc”?]

“How can the union be secure and safe if the Balkans will go crazy?

“How can the European Union allow at its own heart a grey zone where other actors can have a larger influence than the EU itself?

“This is nonsense in terms of security, in terms of safety.”

It comes as the county considers creating a union with Kosovo, which has a majority Albanian ethnic population, despite it being explicitly disallowed by the Kosovan constitution.

Speaking to Politico, the Albanian leader claimed the move could be a “possible alternative” to EU membership.

[As if they’re not going to go for the Kosovo-Albania merge one way or the other. In fact, the first threat to Brussels after EU membership will be if it doesn’t let Albania have its union within a union. ]

Mr Rama added: “The only way to keep the Balkans in this peaceful and cooperative mode is to keep the path to the EU open, to keep the perspective clear, to keep emotions about the EU positive.

[’You don’t want Albanians for an enemy. Just look what happened to Serbia.’ Indeed, they’re only “peaceful and cooperative” so long as you’re giving them what they want.]

“No one would like to turn in on themselves and look for smaller unions, everyone would like to unite in the big union.

“But if there’s no hope, no perspective, no space, then, of course, little unions may happen.”

It comes after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker warned over instability in the Western Balkans.

Mr Juncker said to the US Vice President Mike Pence last month: “If we leave them alone - Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Macedonia, Albania, all those countries — we will have war again.”

Unlike the last time we didn’t leave them alone?

Just to refresh our memories on what underlies all this Western talk of “stability vs. instability,” here is a flashback to a BBC item from Jan. 2011:

[T]he United States and leading EU countries reacted differently to the [Dick] Marty report [which uncovered a murder-for-organs operation by the KLA that involved current Kosovo leaders] — after repeating in unison from the beginning that Kosovo should be given independence because this was a precondition for stability.

But [London School of Economics’ James] Ker-Lindsay said that none were willing to publicly admit that the greatest danger posed to stability were in fact threats made by Kosovo’s Albanians that they would “return to violence” unless given independence.

The British expert also noted that Hashim Thaci was “long believed to be of key importance” in preventing such violence. [i.e., he turns the violence on or off with a snap of the fingers; yet here he is talking about “fighting crime and organized corruption.”]

Now, however, Europeans are beginning to go with the stance that Priština must first fulfill those standards “that were insisted on before independence” [a little late for that], said Ker-Lindsay, adding that “American interests in Kosovo are different from those of Europe”, and that this difference meant the EU “truly wanted Kosovo to grow into a democratic state that respects human rights”, whereas Washington “still insisted on stability”.

What that’s saying is, for Europe Kosovo is a reality in its midst, whereas for us it’s a sweepable-under-the-rug abstraction to be used politically as needed, since it’s not our neighborhood that’ll be disrupted by a dysfunctional criminal state. And yet it’s this dysfunctional state that the dysfunctional Albania seeks to unite with — even as Albanians have expressed just how united they feel with Kosovo by fleeing it in droves.

And the band marches on, to make sure there’s no stopping the Kosovo fait accompli: Though technically it’s not even a country yet, the fast-tracked calamity called Kosovo is being insinuated into all kinds of memberships normally reserved for real countries. Real countries such as Serbia, for example, which doesn’t issue threats and which — unlike Kosovo, apparently — isn’t ready for EU membership, according to craven politician Eliot Engel:

According to Sputnik, lobbyists in America are working on the draft, helped by the Clinton Foundation, and their plan is for Kosovo to gain the status of “an observer state,” modeled after Palestine.

The United States allegedly intends, as Sputnik claims, to in this way circumvent the UN Security Council [just like we did with Kosovo “independence”], whose members have veto power — and if Pristina, with the help of the United States, succeeds in achieving its goals before the end of the negotiations in Brussels, talks between Belgrade and Pristina “would exit their status-neutral format.”

At the same time, “Clinton’s America” is in a hurry to realize this idea as soon as possible also because of Turkey, i.e.,”the growing support of Istanbul to the project of ‘Greater Albania’ — because official America is not in favor of redrawing borders in the Balkans.”

[What was that PM Rama was saying about keeping outside influences out?]

Kosovo President Hashim Thaci recently said the United States should officially join the negotiations in Brussels. Also, a letter from US Congressman and Albanian lobbyist Eliot Engel has surfaced, sent to the head of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, that stated Serbia was “not ready for the EU.”
…
“The whole initiative that is coming from Washington, Brussels and Berlin looks like a desire to prevent the creation of ‘Greater Albania’, because, regardless of previous interpretations, the creation of any large state in the Balkans does not suit America, or other great powers. The strengthening of Kosovo’s independence and the presence of Pristina internationally ensure that such a scenario will not happen [really?] and I think it is the interest of the United States to be involved in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina,” [political science professor Stefan] Surlic said.
…
Asked if, and to what extent, negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina would change if Pristina succeeded, with the help of America, in “grabbing the UN (chair) in any form,” Surlic said:

“First of all, this initiative should be preceded by a serious diplomatic struggle to secure the votes of two-thirds of the members of the UN, and that would…represent very strong pressure on Serbia. The mere fact that more than two-thirds of the world’s countries would recognize Kosovo as a separate state would mean defeat for Serbia and additional pressure to make concessions to Pristina,” he believes. […]

Always the same solution: Pressure Serbia. Get additional concessions from Serbia. Defeat Serbia. It’s like watching a protracted and exponential version of the Oslo “peace process.”